I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, i.e., he can remain on the ballot as a D, all the while collecting signatures to go on the ballot via the petitions. I could be mistaken (haven't looked at the law in a little while) but that's my memory of it. Guess he can have his cake and eat it too!

My new favorite candidate - John Crooks, a Republican who is running for state rep against incumbent Jack Malone. I look forward to the campaign slogans:* We need Crooks in Hartford* Elect Crooks for a change* Crooks will clean up the Capitol* If you liked Rowland, you'll love Crooks* Republicans for Crooks

It boxes in Malone, because all he can do is parrot Nixon: "I am not a Crooks."

Here's an interesting story:With that, the man who cast his first vote for a Democratic presidential candidate only two years ago made it clear that, in the fall, he will try to turn to his advantage the positions and past alliances that dogged his primary campaign this spring.

He supported Allen and George W. Bush in 2000. He's proud of Ronald Reagan -- he was a prominent member of the administration -- and couldn't abide Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. He has questioned affirmative action and supports gun owners. But he also thinks that the war in Iraq was a mistake and that Congress is overwhelmed by special interests and doesn't do enough for the little guy. link

Apparently the anti-liebernamites missed out on this bonafide republican running as a democrat in VA.

blueper - As they said in the movie Clueless "Way Harsh!" I don't know Rubenstein but find the posts informative and/or provocative. Better than a lot of the sniping that has been going on on this site of late which winds up detracting from the valuable political dialogue.

That said, I'm a bit freaked that Lamont is taking off like this. Not being as tied in to all of this as most of you, I discounted Lamont as a one trick pony. Time for us mods to pay attention to where he is on the rest of the issues and see what's what...

Well, if this can happen at the municipal level (candidates remaining in the primary as well as petitioning their way on the November ballot as an independent), is there a reason it can't happen for Lieberman, too?

There were many instances of municipal candidates who did both last year.

State law suggests (and my knowledge is admittedly incomplete) that he could petition as an independent candidate. If he wins, the law wouldn't allow him to appear as a petitioning candidate, only as the nominated candidate. If he loses, he appears as a petitioning candidate.

OK, Brucie, I know you're a highly educated/successful/powerful/experienced/wise/massively endowed/big swingin' political "operative" and $500-an-hour lawyer who has an inordinate amount of time to spend on CLP, but for Chrissakes, if you are gonna call everyone who disagrees with you a small-testicled rodent, would you for fu*k's sake learn how to spell it?

It's chipmUnk, OK? Not chipmOnk.

Just a hint here, but it does ever-so-slightly undermine your claim to be all of the above when you can't spell or type common words.

Trueblue..if you are gonna call SOTS again please ask for the date that someone must send in a letter to ask that they be off the ballot in August as well.

I cant see Joementum doing both..once his field staff request the petitions...many Dems who supported him at the Convention will melt away..and so will alot of his support outside the party structure.That will mean a "slippage" in his polling numbers..and a greater loss to Lamont on August..which will cost him even more votes in November....Joementum's best chance is too get off the August ballot...do you agree?

To the Democrats who dislike Senator Lieberman....If you lose the seat to the Republicans or Joe wins as an Independent,will you be happy while you're claiming that you stood up for Democracy or it's the right thing to do? What other great lines will you use? Joe was a Republican anyways?

Want to lose a Democratic seat? Just keep going and maybe you'll get your wish.

Diane Farrell in a bit of a strange controversy. It seems that she pushed her way into the Black Rock Memorial Day Parade and the organizers were none too happy with her doing so. It makes sense that elected officials would be invited and candidates would not...a perk of incumbancy. Still, I don't really get what the big deal is and why the Post is running a story 2 weeks after the fact.

Patricia Rice...your view of things is flawed...you have no experience to predict what will happen in the primary or 3 way race nor do you present this blog any evidence,direct or indirect of your "spin".

If you are going to keep crying for Joe at least get a towel and whipe yourself off.

DC: I was posting the Farrell piece while you were as well apparently; the CT Post featured a letter to the editor from the parade organizers yesterday - and that should have been enough particularly since the article provides nothing new....as for why the CT Post is just covering it now it's because they are the CT Post....as for me posting it today it was only because I couldn't link the letter yesterday...and I think this goes to the types of mistakes the farrell cmapaign is making in their quest to remove shays....it's another mistake..

I agree BC (that's a first!) Regardless of her strategy, and she has a good one this time, it's stories like this that paint her as a political opportunist. A Memorial Day Parade is really not the forum for political grandstanding. Incidentally, the Veteran's Groups in Derby are so incensed by our former mayor doing the same thing at our parade that any chance he may have had at a come-back is pretty much dead. We all know how powerful veteran groups are in small towns...

DC says:Regardless of her strategy, and she has a good one this time, it's stories like this that paint her as a political opportunist but I actually think she had a better strategy last time and had she kept with it she'd be in a better palce; as for the 'political opportunist' she's actually proved she's not as good as Shays....she should have left it alone...

GiO says:The Kos wing of the Democrat party represents defeat in Iraq, Gay Marriage and Taxes at home as if taxes (or more correctly, debt) weren't paying for Iraq; and nobody is talking about 'defeat' in Iraq since we already won the military battle but many are now talking about how to best conclude military operations....

Something must be done in response to the Schumer quote that the DSCC might support Joementum,even if he bolts.

I suggest someone contact the State Party Chair and lobby her to send a letter to Senator Schumer that the Connecticut Dems demands that the DSCC support the winner of the primary or any support from the CT Dems to the DSCC for fundraising and other help will be terminated.

Joe has until tomorrow (6/16/06) to have his name OFF the ballot..and the Party would have to re-convene and select a new endorsed candidate..up to the 7th day before the primary

If Joementum sends a letter to SOTS from 6/17/06 to 7/30...he will be a non-viable candidate..and the SOTS will send instructions to tape over his name on all machines to the local dem register of voters with instructions to follow along the new party choice ( assuming the party names one by 8/1/06) and tape over Joe's name with the new selection.

If joe sends SOTS a letter from 7/30 to 8/7/06 his name will be on the ballot and will not be counted though...

BR: it hasn't been a "war" since Saddam was captured so I guess I can agree with your saying it's a "crazy war" now. Joe didn't realy vote for the war but the use of force to disarm Saddam....the truth be told is that there are Republicans in Congress - mostly the Senate - who aren't happy the way things are going - even McCain who is a frequent buddy of Joe and a staunch supporter of Bush in iraq has stated for some time now that he has 'no confidence' in Rumsfeld...the whole situation is very frustrating.....

What i am trying to say is that the vote for the use of necessary force in the fall of 2002 was a good vote - it was needed to get the UN inspectors back into Iraq - the order to invade in march 2003 was a bad order since inspections should have been allowed to work...those who don't agree with that point ot saddam's past history - well then they just should have invade in 2002 instead of following the process.....

Joementum..could be on both the august primary and the november ballot...but would have to take out petitions while in the course of the primary..and such an action would kill off his support in the primary..

Most experts said that Saddam had no WMD before the 2002 vote.so sending inspecters back there was meaningless.Joe was pressing for an invasion since the 90's

In addition, Joementum,Hillery Clinton and others knowing what we all know now..still agree that invading Iraq was right...they agree with the 2002 vote and the 2003 order and for that reason, they have the blood of 2500 americans on their hands and we lost so far about 600 billion dollars that could have been used here to further the ends of patriotic americans.

Bluecoat...actually Joementum has the Dem Party in a pickle..he can take his time and jump off in late July...have his nae taped off the ballots..ensure a low turnout for Ned...embarass the Party who couldnt designate Ned as the endorsed candidate in time ( DiNardo is for Joe and has no reason to help Ned) and get up for the run as a "U" . Any money collected by Joe as a D must be refunded..turned over to the state central or a charity and cant be used for his run as a U.

BR:I know Joe was pressing for an invasion way back when but I happen to beleive John Kerry that he beleived Saddam (in the fall of 2002 still had weapons), that inspections were necessary to disarm and the only way to get tham was to back it up with a stick... etc.etc...but there was no need to rush to war on the WMD case and as it turns out no need whatsoever on the WMD case because the inspections would have proved the intellignece wrong......

And as far as folks agreeing that invading Iraq was right I beleive they have rationalized what is happening because Saddam was a bad guy that needed to go - and he did but there were other means - the end justifies the means in these people's minds...then there is the issue of stabilty in the middle east...and how to best effect that...

I think this Joe Lieberman as an Independent talk is just that talk It is a spin by The Lamont Camp trying to get Joe to quit so Ned gets the nod.

Most people in the Lamont camp are just anti-war and the real liberal fringe of The Democratic Party.

The Country is at war That was our Dumb idiot President's call do I agree with it NO!!! Do we need to finish what we started YES!!! Just Because Senator Lieberman chose to do the right thing and stand by our military troops and support them he is criticized and now they want to replace him with a Greenwich Millionaire who is being supported by that big fat idiot moron who ruined this State with his stupid lamea** income tax that he lied to us about.Lamont+ Weicker=Loser. Weicker needs to go back in his cave and go to sleep.He only shoots his mouth off when he wants publicity.

So let Ned Lamont hitch his star to the worst Governor in the History of our State Bad for him Great for Joe!!!

wow, Farrell sure stirred up a hornet's nest with that parade thing. On the surface it seems odd to march as an uninvited person, but then I remember the black rock day parade as being sort of loose free for all many years ago. Maybe she was invited by one of the invitees, certainly possible.